Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)
Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain
in Southwestern Iran
Hojjat Darabi 1, Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh 2, Amir Beshkani 2 and Mana Jami-Alahmadi 2
1 Department of Archaeology, Razi University, Kermanshah, IR
[email protected]
2 Department of Archaeology, University of Tehran, Tehran, IR
ABSTRACT – In terms of Palaeolithic studies, the Mehran Plain is already known due to the discovery of the Amar Merdeg site in 1999. But in spite of the high potential for occupation in different
periods, the prehistoric settlement patterns of the plain had not been identified until the present survey in 2010, which resulted in the discovery of 15 Palaeolithic sites. Of these, 9 sites contain both
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic remains and 3 more sites are attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic as
well 3 sites to Upper Palaeolithic period and beyond. The distribution pattern indicates that easy access to raw materials, which are now visible among the chert pebbles scattered over hillocks on the
plains, was the main reason to establish settling.
IZVLE∞EK – V paleolitskih ∏tudijah je ravnica Mehran znana po odkritju najdi∏≠a Amar Medreg leta
1999. Kljub velikemu potencialu poselitveni vzorci v ravnici niso bili prepoznani vse do najnovej∏ih
terenskih pregledov leta 2010, ko smo odkrili 15 paleolitskih najdi∏≠. Od teh 9 najdi∏≠ vsebuje starej∏e in srednje paleolitske artefakte; 3 najdi∏≠a smo uvrstili v obdobje srednjega paleolitika in prav
tako 3 najdi∏≠a v obdobje mlaj∏ega paleolitika in kasnej∏ih obdobij. Poselitveni vzorec ka∫e, da je bil
glavni razlog za naselitev la∫ji dostop do kamnitih surovin, ki so danes vidne na povr∏ju kot ro∫eni
prodniki, razpr∏eni po vzpetinah v ravnici.
KEY WORDS – Paleolithic; Mehran Plain; settlement pattern
Introduction
Palaeolithic archaeology in Iran has been divided
into three main stages; in the first stage, from the
early 20th century to the late 1970s, all researches
were conducted by western archaeologists building
a foundation on which later researches rested; the
second stage sees a 20-year gap in Palaeolithic studies, and the third stage began with the reopening
of the fields to non-Iranian and also Iranian researchers, which led to the survey and excavation of a
handful of new Palaeolithic sites since the early 21st
century (Vahdati Nasab 2011). However, serious
studies go back to the mid-20th century, when Carletoon Coon (1951) and then others carried out investigations in different areas (Smith 1986; Olszewski,
Dibble 1993). The third stage coincided with research which mostly directed by Iranian archaeoloDOI> 10.4312\dp.39.32
gists or jointly (Roustaei et al. 2002; 2004; Otte et
al. 2009). In this ongoing stage, some sites were also
revisited (Roustaei et al. 2004; Otte et al. 2009) and
some areas have been studied for the first time (Mohammadifar, Motarjem 2008; Biglari et al. 2000;
Biglari, Heidary 2001). In this regard, the Mehran
plain in the southern part of Ilam province in southwestern Iran, adjacent to the Iraqi border, was surveyed in the late 1990s, resulting in the discovery of
Palaeolithic remains at Amar Merdeg (Biglari et al.
2000; Biglari, Shidrang 2006; Nokandeh 2010).
The plain is approximately 400km2 in area, bounded by Pashmin Mountains to the north, the Hamrin
Mountains to the south, the Iraqi border to the west
and Mt. Anaran to the east (Fig. 1). It is also fed by
three main rivers, the Konjam Cham, Gavi and Chan443
Hojjat Darabi, Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh, Amir Beshkani and Mana Jami-Alahmadi
goleh, which all spring in the northern mountains and flow into Iraq.
Archaeological project of the Mehran Plain: Paleolithic survey
Archaeological studies of the Mehran
Plain were begun in the mid-1990s
by Alimohammad Khalilian, who
launched an investigation to identify
all ancient remains, then continued
by Gabriel Nokandeh resulting in 62
sites from various periods being recorded (Nokandeh 2010). Later research focused primarily on the Neolithic period (Darabi, Fazeli 2009;
Zeidi pers. comm.). Geographically,
the plain is located amidst three archaeologically important regions of Fig. 1. Map showing the geographical position of the Mehran Plain.
Mesopotamia and the Susa plains to
posits of varying thickness. The north-northeastern
the west and east, respectively, and the Central Zagmountain areas were formed during the second and
ros to the north. Thus the Mehran Plain is much
third geological era from various lime stones. It
more important in terms of relationships between
should be noted that the northern mountains are
these regions. However, due to political problems
oriented northwest-southeast parallel to the Zagros
such as Iraq-Iran war, very little was known about
chain. Geologically, the plain is located in the midst
the prehistoric settlement change and continuity of
of both tectonic zones of the Zagros fault and lowthe plain until a long-term research project named
lands of Khuzistan (Brookes 1989). But the promi‘Archaeological Project of the Mehran Plain’ was benent features in the plain are the numerous scattegun in 2010. Although the project is mainly focured hillocks which may have been formed by the
sed on investigating both Neolithic and Chalcolithic
accumulation of catastrophic flood alluviation durperiods, we also based one of our survey objectives
ing the Pleistocene (Biglari et al. 2000.749). The
on identifying Palaeolithic remains, which will be
discussed in this paper. The survey directed by H.
Darabi in the spring of 2010 resulted in the discoCoordination
Site name
Z (a.s.l)
Area (m)
very of 36 prehistoric sites (Mr001–Mr036), of which
X
Y
15 sites are attributed to various periods of the PaMR003
644540
3657252
276
200x200
laeolithic on the basis of the stone finds. Table 1
MR005
645723
3657736
304
50x50
shows basic information on the sites. We proposed
MR009
639304
3664307
366
500x200
that the northern calcareous mountains with their
MR010
640592
3668975
507
20x30
numerous caves and shelters and also the PleistoMR012
635994
3662657
335
135x50
cene hillocks on the plain not buried by the later HoMR013
634444
3662671
333
300x1000
locene alluviation were occupied during the PalaeoMR014
637495
3664775
370
400x200
lithic. Due to a shortage of time, the survey coverage
MR015
617684
3670705
248
650x250
was limited to the plain itself, while the northern
MR016
617345
3671048
238
350x150
mountainous areas were not investigated. So, we
MR017
615654
3672515
262
2000x1000
have the plain information itself and hope to comMR018
614262
3672985
256
2100x1000
plete our research in future. However, 22 localities
MR021
612096
3671599
217
1600x800
were mapped, of which 16 are techno-typologically
MR023
611926
3667063
174
60x50
dated. As the prehistoric settlements were affected
MR034
646242
3664232
472
12x6x3
by environmental and geomorphological elements,
MR035
644693
3659031
318
600x300
MR036
644696
3659031
318
4000x2200
this needs to be taken into account here. The Mehran plain has an elevation above sea level varying
from 150m in the west up to 400m in the east and
Tab. 1. Table showing the variant primary information of the discovered sites.
is buried under post-Pleistocene alleviation, with de444
Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain in Southwestern Iran
source of the sediments is the
Aghajari formation and the
overlying and Bakhtiyari conglomerate of the Zagros front
ranges (Eyvazi 1995). Abundant lumps of chert pebble,
cobbles and nodules are
found on the surface of most
of the hillocks, which in terms
of analysing the distribution
pattern of Palaeolithic occupation are very significant Fig. 2. General view of Amar Merdeg as a cluster of hills, looking east.
(Brantingham 2003; Biglari
2004; Heydari 2004; 2007) and we will refer to this
and bifacial tools (Fig. 3.4–6). We also found a sinbelow.
gle hand-axe like which was heavily flaked (Figs. 3.1;
5.1). The chipped stone has a different concentraLower Palaeolithic
tion on the basis of the density of raw material.
As mentioned, 9 sites contain a Lower Palaeolithic
assemblage, which enhances our information on this
period in the plain, as it was already known from
only one site called Amar-Merdeg (Fig. 4). It should
be noted that since this site covers a cluster of separate hills, we recorded it again as four localities in
order to take more samples to be studied more exactly.
Mr012: 5km to the southwest of Mr009 and 1km
to the west of Chalab village, abundant chipped
stone is scattered among the chert raw material similarly to what is seen at the other sites, although
most of the samples collected are attributable to later Palaeolithic periods, of which one bifacial tool
with 6cm in length is notable. The distal end of this
tool is rounded in form and was unretouched. However, the proximal end was flaked on one side, while
Mr003: where the Lashtar
stream flows to the Changloleh River at the easternmost
area of the plain, an assemblage of chipped stones was
scattered over the left bank.
Indeed, the site was established on a conglomerate terrace. Typologically, the pebbles, flakes and a small quantity of unifacial and bifacial
choppers and unipolar cores
were mainly by-products of
working chert pebbles.
Mr009: some 2km to the
north of Chalab village, many
hills are visible over an area
of c. 1.5km2 at an elevation
of 366m above sea level.
Chert pebble, cobble and nodule are present on the hilly
surfaces, these were used to
produce various stone tool
such as polyhedron cores
(Fig. 3. 3), a partially bifacial
chopper, a pointed chopper
Fig. 3. Samples of Lower Palaeolithic tools. 1 bifacial. 2 hand-axe. 3 polyhedron. 4, 6 partially bifacial choppers.
445
Hojjat Darabi, Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh, Amir Beshkani and Mana Jami-Alahmadi
Fig. 4. Map showing the distribution pattern of Lower Palaeolithic
sites on the Mehran Plain.
the other side is cortical. This bifacial tool is heavily
patinated, like those found in Amar Merdeg (Biglari
pers. comm.).
Mr013: this site, located some 4km to the west of
Chalab village on the northern edge of the MehranDehluran road, extends over an area of about less
than 2km2. Of the collected samples, two polyhedrons made from chert pebbles are attributed to Lower Palaeolithic period.
to what is known. What is visible
among the Amar Merdeg 1 (Mr015)
and 2 (Mr016) assemblages is numerous core-choppers and tested pebbles. We also found many partially
bifacial chopper and unifacial choppers. But no bifacial tools were
found, which could be a result of a
sampling error. In Amar Merdeg 4
(Mr018) one hand-axe was discovered, although it is not so typical due
to the later natural modification
through time (Fig. 5.2). The raw material is mainly based on the chert,
sandstone, and small amount of
quartzite cobbles which are scattered over the surface of the site.
Mr023: some 5km to the southwest of Amar Merdeg, we found Paleolithic stone tools among later
materials in an area of c. 2000m2 bounded by fields.
It should be noted that the site of Mr023 is not so
prominent that it could be seen easily and it seems
that was buried by Holocene alluviation. The Palaeolithic tools with denser concentration in west
area of the site are distinguished from the later lithics by their different raw material, techno-typology and patina. Of these, one hand-axe with 10cm
in length and 7cm in width, were discovered. The
hand-axe is heavily retouched and only a small cortical area on both sides was unretouched (Fig. 3.2).
Although this artefact was made of mudstone, chert
and sandstone was the primary raw material at the
site.
Mr015–16–17–18 (Amar Merdeg Collection):
a cluster of hills extending over an area of c. 10km2
less than 1km to the east of the Konjan-Cham river
and 7km to the north of the town of Mehran, at 250–
300m above sea level (Fig. 2). As a result of the previous survey in 1999, some of the samples collected
from the site such as chopping tools
were attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic (Biglari et al. 2000.749). Additional fieldwork in 2001 and 2004 resulted in the discovery of four bifaces and
partial bifaces and more core-choppers
(Biglari, Shidrang 2006.164). Indeed,
Amar Merdeg is among those hillocks
which were formed as the result of catastrophic flood alluviation during the
Pleistocene and have numerous cobbles, pebbles and nodules of chert over
the surface. Because of the dangerous
military waste remaining from the IraqIran war in the 1980s, the previous survey was devoted to limited areas of the
site. But, we tried to take as many samples as possible in the present survey. Fig. 5. The common presence of two techno-typologically diffeHowever, the samples indicate a pat- rent bifacial (top row) and Levalloisian (bottom row) tools on
tern of technological typology similar the Mehran Plain.
446
Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain in Southwestern Iran
In terms of the Lower Palaeolithic
period, two points can be made:
first, as the raw material to produce
tools, the abundant chert stones on
the surfaces of hillocks attracted the
inhabitants of the plain. Second, all
the localities in this period contain
later Middle Palaeolithic remains,
indicating continuity of occupation
continuation, as suitable raw material was easily acquired. This, however, makes it difficult to identify
the tools from each period, although
they appear as two techno-typologically different bifacial and Levalloisian tools, respectively (Fig. 5). It Fig. 6. Map showing the distribution pattern of Middle Palaeolithic
sites on the Mehran Plain.
should also be noted that the Lower
area c. 3km2. Apart from those related to the Lower
Palaeolithic tools have a heavier patina on the scar
surface than those of the Middle Palaeolithic.
Palaeolithic, Levallois cores – such as a sub-rounded
one and related debitages – are also scattered over
Middle Paleolithic
the surface. Flakes with Chapeau de jendarme platform were the most common type. Some of the tools
Since all the previous localities (except nos. Mr003
had been reused.
and 023) also yielded Middle
Palaeolithic stone tools, the
settlement pattern of this period somewhat resembles
what is seen in the earlier period of the Lower Palaeolithic.
Therefore, the geographical
setting of these repetitive sites is here avoided and their
typical stone tools are merely
described. Moreover, the survey identified three new sites (Mr014–21–36; Fig. 6).
Mr009: most of the surface
chipped stones at this site
could be dated to the Middle
Paleolithic period. Although
no typical Levallois core was
found, other indicators such
as centripetal, bipolar and discoid cores along with their
related tools are notable (Fig.
7.2, 3, 7). It should be mentioned that direct retouch was
mainly used to produce tools
such as scrapers.
Mr012: this site contained
numerous techno-typologically Levalloisian tools over an
Fig. 7. Middle Palaeolithic stone tools from the Mehran Plain. 1 Levallois
core; 2 centri-petal core; 3, 4 flake cores; 5 Levallois point; 6 side scraper;
7 discoid core.
447
Hojjat Darabi, Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh, Amir Beshkani and Mana Jami-Alahmadi
Mr013: the Levallois technique
could be also attested at this site on
the basis of the presence of some
tools such as a Levallois blade core
and a double-sided scraper made on
an elongated flake.
Mr014: this locality is located about
2km to the northwest of Chalab village in an area c. 2km2 extending
over several hillocks. Some single
and multi-platform cores and different related debitages are visible on Fig. 8. General view of the Kellaw Pikeh rock shelter, looking north.
the surface, but no Levallois core
Mousterian Point. Many other points with Chapeau
was discovered, which could be a result of a samde jendarme platforms should also be taken into acpling error. A scraper made on a débordante blade
count (Fig. 7.1, 4–6). However, various scrapers
tentatively attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic is
make up a high proportion of the assemblage.
worth noting.
Mr015–16–17–18 (Amar Merdeg): most of the
Amar Merdeg assemblage can be dated to Middle Palaeolithic with an emphasis on Levallois technology.
Various tools such as a Levalloisian point with Chapeau de jendarme platform and various kinds of
centripetal, discoid, single-platform and multi-platform cores are very common at the site.
Mr021: this site is located on the Chogha Khulami
hillocks, covering about 1.2km2 in area, 5km to the
north of Mehran Town on the left bank of the Konjan-Cham River. The numerous chert stones seen
on the surface of these hillocks were used as raw
material, as at Amar Merdeg. The collected assemblage indicates an emphasis on Levallois technology.
Moreover, some tools were produced as a result of
direct percussion. Techno-typologically the sampled
tools, however, show a similar pattern to those of
nearby Amar Merdeg, and centripetal, discoid, single-platform and multi-platform cores are also visible
here. Although the site is near Amar
Merdeg to the east, it has yielded no
Lower Palaeolithic tools so far. This
might be related to a sampling error;
we await the discovery of earlier material.
Mr036: 8km to the west of Mr012,
numerous chipped stones are scattered in a vast area which is not precisely defined. Levallois cores and
tools are visible among the abundant
chert pebbles and cobbles. Moreover,
the most prominent indicator is a
448
Upper Paleolithic and beyond
The Upper Palaeolithic material is not as diagnostic
as the Middle Palaeolithic. This prevents the easy
attribution of the tools, which remains one of the
most important research objectives for the future.
However, a rock shelter known as Kelaw Pikeh has
already been attributed to the Upper Palaeolithic
(Nokandeh 2010). We revisited the site (Mr034)
and took samples which are mainly based on different scrapers with no typical tool (Fig. 8). Two more
sites were also dated to the Upper Paleolithic or even
the Epi-Palaeolithic (Fig. 9).
Mr005: this site is located on the bank of the Lashtar stream in the easternmost part of the plain. Various tools such as scrapers, blades and cores made
from red and light grey chert were collected from
Fig. 9. Map showing the distribution of Upper Palaeolithic/Epi-Palaeolithic sites on the Mehran Plain.
Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain in Southwestern Iran
Fig. 10. Selected samples of Upper Palaeolithic/EpiPalaeolithic tools. 1 double-side scraper; 2 Burin
spall; 3 Burin.
the surface. However, a burin was also found which
was made on a blade and could be assigned to the
Upper Palaeolithic (Fig. 10.3).
Lower Palaeolithic. As mentioned above, the surface
materials are hard to place within the Lower Palaeolithic, as in the case of the material found in the
Hulailan Valley (Mortensen 1993). Most of the Lower Palaeolithic tools are chopping tools, which
could not be dated individually to particular periods.
However, the presence of bifacial tools and handaxes could be taken as a prominent indicator of Lower Palaeolithic occupation of the plain. These tools
have been discovered in different areas, such as Gakia in Kermanshah (Braidwood 1960), Pal Barik in
Hulailan (Mortensen 1993), Kuran Bozan Valley on
the bank of the Seimarreh River (Alibaigi et al.
2011) or even in East Ajarbaijan to the north (SadekKooros 1976; Singer, Wymer 1978) as an indication
of the Achuelian tradition. While one of the routes
that early hominids supposedly took into Iran is
Mr010: some 5km to the north of the Chalab village in the Daraw Palk Valley, a rock
shelter is located which seems to have collapsed through time; a freshwater spring
flows 300km to the northeast which is used
by local nomads as their main supply water. Chipped stones distributed among large
stone slabs. The most significant tools are
cores, blades, bladelets and scrapers, all of
which are made from dark grey flint. No
blade cores were found. Most of the tools
are made on blades, of which a double-sided scraper with heavy retouch is notable
(Fig. 10.1). Moreover, a burin spall was also
discovered (Fig. 10.2) which could be taken
as an indicator of possible Epi-Palaeolithic
occupation.
Finally, it should be noted that, although
some of these tools are attributable to both
the Upper Palaeolithic and the Epi-Palaeolithic periods, we need more data, which is
expected to be found on the northern parts
of the plain.
Discussion and conclusion
The present survey indicates Palaeolithic
occupation of the Mehran Plain at different
times. Techno-typologically, we based our
chronology mainly on materials from the
nearby region of the Central Zagros to the
north (Tab. 2).
The finds indicate that the Mehran Plain
could have been occupied first in the later
Tab. 2. Table showing the chronology of Palaeolithic sites
found on the Mehran Plain in comparison with the Central
Zagros (after Roustaei et al. 2004.699, Fig. 6 with some modifications).
449
Hojjat Darabi, Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh, Amir Beshkani and Mana Jami-Alahmadi
that these hillocks were partly buried by the later
Holocene alleviation, and therefore those areas
which remained from the Pleistocene period contain Palaeolithic artefacts on the surface. We think
the abundant raw materials attracted the Palaeolithic inhabitants at various times, resulting in the
presence of different typo-technologically stone tools
from both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods. In terms of later occupation, the finds were so
few that no conclusion may be drawn, and therefore
it should be regarded as a significant issue for future research.
from northern Mesopotamia and along the southwestern foothills of the Zagros range (Rolland
2001), the recent remains from Mehran Plain are
worth noting.
However, Middle Palaeolithic occupation is much
more easily recognised than Lower Palaeolithic on
the Mehran Plain, similar to what is seen in highland Zagros. Excavations at several sites in western
Iran, such as Bisotun cave (Coon 1951; Dibble
1984), Warwasi rock shelter (Dibble, Holdaway
1993), Ghar-i-Khar (Smith 1986.18) and Konj and
Arjenah caves (Baumler, Speth 1993; Hole, Flannery 1967) have provided a sufficient basis for dating the Middle Palaeolithic occupation, based mainly
on the occurrence of the Mousterian tradition. Unlike these sites, the Mehran plain yielded open-air
sites with Levalloisian tools, although the calcareous northern mountains need to be surveyed in future for possible caves and rock shelters with Middle Palaeolithic deposits. However, the present survey indicates that Palaeolithic occupation was concentrated primarily on hillocks where chert pebbles and cobbles of various sizes are visible. It seems
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank M. J. Khanzadi, A. M. Shanbehzadeh,
A. Yari, B. Pirani and R. Arjmandi in ICHO of
Ilam Province for their work in obtaining the
survey permit. We are also grateful to Dr. H. Fazeli for obtaining a place to study the finds at
the Institute of Archaeology and S. Alibaigi for
his helpful comments.
∴
Referenes
Alibaigi S., Niknami K. A., Heydari M., Nikzad, M., Zainivand M., Manhobi S., Mohammadi Qasrian S., Khalili M.
and Islami N. 2011. Palaeolithic open-air sites revealed
in the Kuran Buzan Valley, Central Zagros, Iran. Antiquity
85(329), Project Gallery.
Baumler M. F., Speth J. D. 1993. A Middle Paleolithic Assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran. In D. I. Olszewski, H. L.
Dibble (eds.), The Paleolithic prehistory of the ZagrosTaurus. University Museum Symposium series 5. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (PA): 1–73.
Biglari F. 2004. The Preliminary Observations on Middle
Palaeolithic Raw Material Procurement and Usage in the
Kermanshah Plain, The Case of Do-Ashkaft Cave. In T.
Stollner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds.), Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Hudwerk, Archäologie. Katalog
der Ausstellung des Bochum: Deustsches Bergbau-Museums Bochum von 28 November 2004 bis 29 Mai 2005.
Deutsches Bergbau Museum, Bochum: 130–138.
Biglari F., Nokandeh G. and Heydari S. 2000. Recent Find
of a Possible Lower Paleolithic Assemblage from the Foothills of the Zagros Mountains. Antiquity 74: 749–750.
450
Biglari F., Heydari S. 2001. Do-Ashkaft: A Recently Discovered Mousterian Cave in the Kermanshah Plain, Iran.
Antiquity 75: 487–8.
Biglari F., S. Shidrang 2006. The lower Paleolithic occupation of Iran. Near Eastern Archaeology 69: 160–68.
Braidwood J., Howe B. 1960. Prehistoric Investigation
in the Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, no. 31. The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Braidwood R. 1960. Seeking the World’s First Farmers
in Persian Kurdistan: A Full – Scale Investigation of Prehistoric Sites Near Kermanshah. Illustrated London News
237: 695–697.
Brantingham P. J. 2003. A Neutral Model of Stone Raw
Material Procurement. American Antiquity 68: 487–509.
Brookes I. A. 1989. The physical geography, geomorphology, and Late Quaternary history of the Mahidasht
project area, Qara Su Basin, central west Iran. Mahidasht Project Volume. Ontario Museum. Toronto.
Palaeolithic occupation of the Mehran Plain in Southwestern Iran
Coon C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949. The
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.
Olszewski D., Dibble H. (eds.) 1993. The Paleolithic prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University of Pennsylvania
Museum. Philadelphia.
Darabi H., Fazeli N. H. 2009. The Neolithic of the Mehran
Plain: an introduction. Antiquity 83(322), Project Gallery.
Otte. M., Biglari F., Flas D., Shidrang S., Zwyns N., Mashkour M., Naderi R., Mohaseb A., Hashemi N., Darvish J.,
and Radu V. 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros Region:
new research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran. Antiquity
81(311): 82–96.
Dibble H. L. 1984. The Mousterian Industry from Bisitun
Cave (Iran). Palorient 18: 23–34.
Eyvazi J. 1995. Geomorphology of Iran. Payam-e Nour
University Press. Tehran (in Persian).
Heydari S. 2004. Stone Raw Material Sources in Iran,
Some Case Studie. In T. Stollner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust (eds.), Persiens Antike Pracht: Bergbau, Hudwerk,
Archäologie. Katalog der Ausstellung des Bochum: Deustsches Bergbau-Museums Bochum von 28 November
2004 bis 29 Mai 2005). DeutschesBergbau Museum, Bochum: 124–129.
2007. The Impact of Geology and Geomorphology on
Cave and Rockshelter Archaeological Site Formation,
Preservation, and Distribution in the Zagros Mountains
of Iran. Geoarchaeology 22(6): 653–669.
Hole F., Flannery K. V. 1967. The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: a Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Prehistory Society 33: 147–206.
Otte M., Biglari F. and Jaubert J. 2009. Iran Paleolithic.
BAR International Series 1968. Oxford.
Rolland N. 2001. The Initial Peopling of Eurasia and the
Early Occupation of Europe in Its Afro-Asian Context: Major Issues and Current Perspectives. In S. Milliken, J. Cook
(eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Paleolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books, Oxford:
78–94.
Roustaei K., Biglari F., Heydari S. and Vandati Nasab H.
2002. New Research on the Paleolithic of Lurestan, West
Central Iran. Antiquity 76(291): 19–20.
Roustaei K., Vandati Nasab H., Biglari F., Heydari S., Clark
G. A. and Lindly J. M. 2004. Recent Paleolithic Surveys
in Luristan. Current Anthropology 45(5): 692–707.
Mohammadifar Y., Motarjem A. 2008. Settlement Continuity in Kurdistan. Antiquity 82(317), Project Gallery.
Sadek-Kooros H. 1976. Early Hominid Traces in East Azarbaijan In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceedings of the IVth
Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran,
Tehran 1975. Iranian Center for Archaeological Research,
Tehran: 1–10.
Mortensen P. 1993. Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Sites
in the Hulailan Valley, Northern Luristan. In D. I. Olszewski, H. L. Dibble (eds.), The Paleolithic prehistory of the
Zagros-Taurus. University Museum Symposium series 5.
University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: 159–187.
Singer R., Wymer J. 1978. A Hand-Ax from Northwest Iran:
The Question of Human Movement between Africa and
Asia in the Lower PalaeolithicPeriods. In L. G. Freeman
(ed.), Views of the Past: Essays in Old World Prehistory
and Paleoanthropology. Mouton, Hague: 13–27.
Nokandeh J. 2010. Archaeological survey in the Mehran
Plain, South Western Iran. In P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L.
Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds.), 6 ICAANE, Proceedings of
the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archeology in the Near
East. Volume 2. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden: 483–509.
Smith P. E. L. 1986. Palaeolithic Archaeology in Iran.
American Institute of Iranian Studies Monographs, Vol.
1. Studies by the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.
Vahdati Nasab H. 2011. Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran.
International Journal of Humanities of the Islamic Republic of Iran 18(2): 63–87.
451